Archaeological Evidence of pre-Constantinian Christianity

[stephan happy huller]

Very well done. I wonder what "quitquit" originally meant in one of the fragmentary Latin inscriptions http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/ed ... 16&lang=en

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, Stephan. I think the conjecture is that "quidquid" is intended. Ancient typo.

You can see that conjecture made here: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptio ... egion%3D12

[Leucius Charinus]

I've organized the links and added some more, for those interested in such things:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129

Here are some links regarding paleography, epigraphy, and archaeology with respect to Christianity in the first four centuries AD

Let's start with this section:

3. Papyri from the persecutions of the mid-third century

http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VEx ... stian.html ... Order to arrest a "CHRESIAN"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3035 .... Order to arrest a "CHRESIAN"
http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;43;3119 ................... Χρηστιανῶν and Χ[ρ]ηστιανῶν "CHRESTIAN"?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 3086054777 ... See above: Χρηστιανῶν and Χ[ρ]ηστιανῶν "CHRESTIAN"?
http://books.google.com/books?id=w59JAA ... li&f=false ... Libelli from Decius, none of which refer to Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POxy_1464 ................... a PAGAN libellus, one of four PAGAN libelli found at Oxyrhynchus
https://archive.org/stream/oxyrhynchusp ... 1/mode/2up ... a PAGAN libellus, one of four PAGAN libelli found at Oxyrhynchus


As you can see we have no references to "Christians", one to "Chresians", a couple to "Chrestians" and some pagan libelli.
I have dealt with all of these here


.

[Peter Kirby]

But the disciples were first called Chrestians (not Christians) ...

Now, I get it. This thing is your Santa Claus. Far be it from me to take it from you. Not like I got time for that anyway.

Have it all "dealt with," if you want. I have better things to do than to try to win a debate with you on the internet.

[stephan happy huller]

You can win the debate, you can get him to acknowledge the fragment at Dura Europa disproves his thesis as spin did but he keeps on going anyway. He's not interested in the truth. He comes here to 'raise doubts' and then reinforce a lazy man's solution to everything which can't possibly be true but which he hopes increasingly lazy intellects will just latch onto in order to close the door on Christianity. As I've said, what he proposes is the anti-Christian equivalent of the Protocols of Zion.

[Leucius Charinus]

Critically questioning our sources is what this forum is about.

Here's the thing. This forum accepts the necessity of critical questioning as something natural, as a matter of course.

Do you really stand by these statements?

And do you endorse Huller's viewpoints?

[Peter Kirby]

Critically questioning our sources is what this forum is about.

Here's the thing. This forum accepts the necessity of critical questioning as something natural, as a matter of course.

Do you really stand by these statements?

That's why I stated them.

And do you endorse Huller's viewpoints?

I'd have to check with my lawyer.

[Leucius Charinus]

As I've said, what he proposes is the anti-Christian equivalent of the Protocols of Zion.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s

Some points exposing stephan happy huller's totally erroneous assertion:

(1) What I am proposing for discussion relates to the ancient history of the 4th to the 9th century (to Pseudo-Isidore), not to the present day.
(2) What I am proposing for discussion has absolutely nothing to do with modern Christians or modern Christianity, but rather to history.
(3) The text of the Protocols of Zion forgery contains generalisations and does not contain specifics whereas the evidence being examined for discussion here only contains specifics, not generalisations.

And do you endorse Huller's viewpoints?

I'd have to check with my lawyer.

Huller should check in with his psychologist.

He seems to be emotionally identifying with historical hypotheses.

[spin]

I've organized the links and added some more, for those interested in such things:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129

Here are some links regarding paleography, epigraphy, and archaeology with respect to Christianity in the first four centuries AD

Let's start with this section:

3. Papyri from the persecutions of the mid-third century

http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VEx ... stian.html ... Order to arrest a "CHRESIAN"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_3035 .... Order to arrest a "CHRESIAN"
http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;43;3119 ................... Χρηστιανῶν and Χ[ρ]ηστιανῶν "CHRESTIAN"?
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 3086054777 ... See above: Χρηστιανῶν and Χ[ρ]ηστιανῶν "CHRESTIAN"?
http://books.google.com/books?id=w59JAA ... li&f=false ... Libelli from Decius, none of which refer to Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POxy_1464 ................... a PAGAN libellus, one of four PAGAN libelli found at Oxyrhynchus
https://archive.org/stream/oxyrhynchusp ... 1/mode/2up ... a PAGAN libellus, one of four PAGAN libelli found at Oxyrhynchus


As you can see we have no references to "Christians", one to "Chresians", a couple to "Chrestians" and some pagan libelli.
I have dealt with all of these here

Tertullian (Ad Nationes 1.3.7) notes the fact that non-christians often mispronounce the name. The above examples are consistent with that fact.

[stephan happy huller]

Hey Fourth Century Conspiracy Madman:

The Protocols of Zion is a lie and the people who promote that nonsense know it is a lie. It proposes that Judaism was founded on a heinous crime the shedding of innocent blood. This idiotic book claims that Jews continue to slaughter innocents for their religion. You propose that Christianity was founded on a lie and the slaughter of the blood of the innocent in order to found this lie. You have previously acknowledged the falseness of your hypothesis in the other forum when you recognized that the evidence at Dura Europos disproved your thesis. Now you are content to ignore that confession again and go full throttle back into you vitriol.

You claim that not only did Jesus never exist but three centuries of Christian witnesses and texts were invented and then a massive holocaust, people were murdered 'without number' (or whatever idiotic quote you took out of context') in order to 'assist' with the founding of this false religion. This shedding of blood isn't simply reported but it has been developed by you in various posts you have produced - especially in that other forum - as 'proof' of the evil, wickedness and illegitimacy of the Christian religion.

My equivalency of your idiotic theory and the Protocols of Zion is based on the common cultivation of (a) conspiracy and (b) a reckless ignoring of all evidence to the contrary and (c) relentless promotion in various gatherings with a hate filled agenda in order to (d) attract like-minded enemies of an established and respected religion by means of (e) an overarching 'blood libel' argument which hopes to have emotions take the place of a rational evaluation of the evidence.

IMO what you propose is very similar to the Protocols of Zion. No one could seriously put forward that Christianity was 'invented' in the fourth century given the existence of physical evidence of the religion long before that time. You have been shown that evidence. You have at times acknowledged the implications of this evidence destroys your conspiracy theory when put in a corner by relentless cross examination. But then then after you take a break, switch forums you continue to promote theories hoping to attract like-minded haters by means of established religion-bating techniques.

The only real difference between what you propose with respect to Christian origins and what the author of the Protocols does with respect to Judaism is that you haven't proposed that Christians continue to kill innocents to this very day - as such they can't be chopped up and put into their sacramental foods. Nevertheless you have established the building blocks for a 'blood libel' argument at the heart of your theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

On the modern use of 'blood libel' to mean 'the shedding of blood' rather than the specific use of blood in sacramental foods - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 ... ibel/?_r=0

I am on record as saying that I would ban you from discussions of Christian origins on the grounds that you promote hate speech. If this were a Jewish forum and someone were to promote similar views - even those not specifically citing the Protocols of Zion - I would hope the same ban would be carried out. The evidence does not allow for the idea that Christianity was invented out of thin air in the fourth century. The religion existed at least from the beginning of the second century if not late late first century. To argue that Constantine and Eusebius perpetrated a massive hoax and then slaughtered all the pagan witnesses who might have challenged their invention, forcing a massive conversion to a false religion by means of coercion is absolute nonsense and serves no other purpose other than insulting and denigrating what is certainly a legitimate faith which developed naturally from the Greek philosophical exegesis of Jewish exegesis as witnessed by Philo of Alexandria and other known writers (i.e. Justus of Tiberias) all living in the first century.